Obama's Approval Rises In Superstorm Sandy's Wake

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Is incredible how people have such short memories, Obama is making sure that Sandy victims gets pennies for their lost so he can boost his ratings

But, But people forgot when the same Obama denied assistance to the devastated Oklahoma tornadoes victims in April early this year and last year to victims of Virginia tornadoes, I guess elections were not that close enough or this particular states piss him in some way or another.





posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Not in my community here in Pennsylvania.
Our power just came on Sunday ... we all had alot of time on our hands and in this time we've had we got together ate and drank together stayed warm together
and talked about the up coming election.
I can tell you how afraid we all were if we couldn't vote this tuesday ... everyone I talked to...sat with and spent some time with are all voting for Mitt.
These people were ALL Obama supporters in 2008.
In my area 3 years ago (majorly Demo state)..they were praising him they wouldn't say a bad word about him things are quite different now and it's not just here it's Jersey too!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Interesting article I read yesterday,

Superstorm Sandy packed more total energy than Hurricane Katrina at landfall


There is a metric that quantifies the energy of a storm based on how far out tropical-storm force winds extend from the center, known as Integrated Kinetic Energy or IKE*. In modern records, Sandy’s IKE ranks second among all hurricanes at landfall, higher than devastating storms like Hurricane Katrina, Andrew and Hugo, and second only to Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

The above chart compares IKE and intensity for storms at the time they struck land (in the U.S.). Not all historic storms can be included because a detailed wind field analysis (required to compute IKE) is unavailable for storms in the distant past. But this chart shows the majority of high-ranking modern cases.

Sandy’s IKE was over 140 Terajoules (TJ, 1 TJ = 1 trillion Joules = 277,778 kilowatt hours), meaning it generated more than twice the energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. At any given moment, many hurricanes contain more energy than an atomic bomb in their surface winds alone (even excluding winds at higher elevations and latent heat energy).
www.washingtonpost.com... 85-e669876c6a24_blog.html
Though way down on the scale, I include Andrew and Charley in the chart to show how their small IKE contrast their high rankings on the Saffir-Simpson scale which is based solely on peak sustained winds. This demonstrates small intense storms generate far less energy than large weak storms.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


THat is interesting. I have never seen that metric used before.

From a perspective of the way that energy was wielded, however, the speed of the winds for Sandy (reported at 89mph) pale in comparison to Katrina (140mph at landfall) or Katrina's cousin Rita (which landed in Texas about a month later with windspeeds of 120mph).

The aftermath of Rita, the tropical storm, had windspeeds in New Braunfels of around 65mph. I spent that day at Schlitterbahn waterpark (vacation was already planned, and we weren't turning back).

The energy may have been greater on the whole. But how that energy is focused....that is what tells the destruction.

Consider it like this: squeeze an egg in your hand. No matter how strong you are, the egg won't break. But you can use 1/10th that energy, applied to just one spot, to cause the shell to fail catastrophically (or, break). It isn't the amount of energy used, but how that energy is focused.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Is incredible how people have such short memories, Obama is making sure that Sandy victims gets pennies for their lost so he can boost his ratings

But, But people forgot when the same Obama denied assistance to the devastated Oklahoma tornadoes victims in April early this year and last year to victims of Virginia tornadoes, I guess elections were not that close enough or this particular states piss him in some way or another.



Texas too
Obama denied Texas wildfire aid request



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


This kind thing goes way over my head, but I thought it was interesting, I will have to read it a few more times.

edit on 083030p://bMonday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


It is very interesting.

I was reading through the Neil Degrasse-Tyson Twitter feed from during Sandy, and he mentions how nice it would be to capture the energy released during a hurricane. Instead of destroying cities, it could power them.

Of course, we need hurricanes to move water from place to place. They serve a purpose, even if that purpose is counter to the goals of humanity.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





Of course, we need hurricanes to move water from place to place. They serve a purpose, even if that purpose is counter to the goals of humanity.


Yup, the air is never fresher then after a thunderstorm, we adapt, the earth isn't easy to live on .



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





Of course, we need hurricanes to move water from place to place. They serve a purpose, even if that purpose is counter to the goals of humanity.


Yup, the air is never fresher then after a thunderstorm, we adapt, the earth isn't easy to live on .



Well, to go off topic just a touch....this summer had some storms here in West Texas. It had been so long since I had smelled that smell of ozone in the air.....

Nothing had ever smelled so sweet. We sat on the back porch watching the rain fall for many of those storms. It was truly a blessing for us.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Disasters that create helpless victims will always benefit the Democrats. Thats the nature of things.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Disasters that create helpless victims will always benefit the Democrats. Thats the nature of things.


It's funny how conservatives scream small government all day every day...until something disastrous happens and they come crying home because they need federal assistance.


The same thing happened here in Texas when half the state was on fire. Everyone stopped yelling "SECEDE" for a few days while they called DC for help



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Disasters that create helpless victims will always benefit the Democrats. Thats the nature of things.


It's funny how conservatives scream small government all day every day...until something disastrous happens and they come crying home because they need federal assistance.


The same thing happened here in Texas when half the state was on fire. Everyone stopped yelling "SECEDE" for a few days while they called DC for help


Or, conversely, conservatives just expect that after all they have paid in, they certainly should cash in on it finally.

I am staunchly libertarian. However, since I have been extorted for the money to support these programs, I certainly expect to have my investment repaid.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then why is it that the red states are the biggest welfare states, who continuously get more fed funds than they give?

The poorer the state, the more likely it is to be red.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Save me the effort of searching out your evidence to support this.

If you are right, we can talk.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then why is it that the red states are the biggest welfare states, who continuously get more fed funds than they give?

The poorer the state, the more likely it is to be red.



The use of Red and Blue states is based on which party the state traditionally goes to during Presidential elections.

The welfare issue resides in the state legislatures and the criteria they establish to qualify. A state that goes for one party during presidential elections does not mean the state government does the same. Since welfare is a state issue rather than a federal one the claim you made needs to be supported by sources.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


A quick search says!!!

m.host.madison.com... tml


Every year, about 30 states receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes, while the other 20 states bankroll the federal government. New Mexico and Mississippi are usually the greatest net beneficiaries of spending, receiving roughly $2 in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. New Jersey and Illinois are the greatest net contributors to the federal government, receiving about 60 cents in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. States in the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast generally lose money to the federal government, while Southern and Great Plains states benefit.

Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democrat. This paradox occurs even controlling for a state’s per-person income, total population, racial composition, education.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It is the same people voting in those same states.

The red states also are the economic losers in the US.

The more affluent the area, the more likely they are to vote demo, even in Texas.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Lastly I will add.

Considering how things went, I think I have bragging rights to claim, looks like I was right.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


sounds to me like it is population density, not geography.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I'm not sure what you are talking about here? Population density is often a result of prosperity.

The blue states also have a higher per capita income. They are the centers of manufacturing, finance, and technology.

While the red states are known for the corruption of their local governments.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join